Fading Star?

[Noodle]

Here's a recent read from SI.com, and it ain't Dr. Z (I've edited to remove a lot of the stuff about McNabb, because who cares about McNabb):

A few years ago, an Eagles-Packers game would have been a showcase for two of the NFL's most remarkable quarterbacks. Donovan McNabb was young, athletic, with a missile-launcher for an arm and rocket-fueled legs, and BrettFavre was living up to the Hall of Fame credentials he'd established in his first 10 years.

That was a few years ago.

Last week's Eagles-Packers game at Lambeau Field was a showcase of two quarterbacks who look a little older, a little slower and a lot less effective than in their glory years.

McNabb, in his first game since having knee surgery last November, completed 45 percent of his passes and was just 5-for-16 in the second half. Favre didn't throw a touchdown pass, didn't have a completion longer than 22 yards and turned the ball over twice.

You expect this sort of thing when Matt Leinart and Alex Smith square off. Errant passes, poor decisions, rookie mistakes. Not when you're watching two quarterbacks with 13 combined Pro Bowl appearances.

It's easy to dismiss these ugly performances as aberrations by two guys who've been very successful for a long time. It's easy to assume that this Sunday or maybe next both McNabb and Favre will revert back to All-Pro form. Both faced tough defenses, neither got much help from his offensive line and both have made a living out of bouncing back from adversity.

And it's certainly possible. McNabb and Favre have had poor games and protracted slumps before. Next thing you know they're putting together a six-game winning streak, chucking 50-yard touchdowns up and down the field and laughing at those who doubted them. Favre is 37, but McNabb is only 30 and has played only 11 games in the last 22 months. Maybe he just needs some time to shake off the rust.

But last Sunday's performances didn't occur in a vacuum. Lately, games like these have been the rule, not the exception. And the suspicion grows stronger and stronger that neither will ever be what he used to be -- McNabb because of injuries, Favre because of age.

If you look beyond their reputations, there's little evidence to support the notion that McNabb and Favre are still elite quarterbacks.

Over the past three seasons, Favre has won 13 of 33 games, with 38 touchdown passes and 48 interceptions. Joey Harrington can walk around and brag that since the 2005 season started, he has a better touchdown-to-interception ratio than Favre. And Harrington can't brag about much.

Favre? Since the Packers beat the 49ers in the 1997 NFC Championship Game, he's lost six of eight playoff games, throwing more interceptions than touchdowns in those eight games.

Through 2004, Favre won 65 percent of his starts.

Since 2005, he's won 39 percent.

The Packers used a first-round pick in 2005 to draft Aaron Rodgers out of Cal, and the Eagles used a second-round pick in 2007 to draft Kevin Kolb out of Houston. Both were sharp in the preseason, completing at least 62 percent of their passes and combining for five TDs and no interceptions.

It's tough to find the right time to say good-bye to a legend. Favre is a first-ballot Hall of Famer. McNabb a few years ago supplanted Randall Cunningham as the greatest quarterback in Eagles history.

They're two of the most gifted quarterbacks to ever play the game. Or maybe they just used to be.

[Badgerinmaine]

Sure, they're older and more banged up than they were ten years ago, but the article makes no effort to account for the changes in personnel they have from back then, either. There is no comparison between the supporting cast Brett Favre has at RB and WR now as he did then, especially with Donald Driver playing hurt. The ending seems to imply that both teams should bench their old QBs to let the kids play. That might be a good idea if you are the Browns, but I think the Eagles and Packers would both be foolish to do so.

[pittstang5]

It also doesn't mention the poor play of the o-line. If we've learned one thing over the years, it's so obvious that Favre plays better when he has protection and a good running game to fall back on.

[FritzDontBlitz]

Through 2004, Favre won 65 percent of his starts.

Since 2005, he's won 39 percent.

god, i love when writers make up bullshit "stats" like this.

since 2005? can we remember to point out that in 2005 favre's team won 25% of their games but managed to raise that percentage to 50% the following year to arrive at that 39%? and where is the mention of favre's career winning percentage?

jeez, we all know favre is old. we just dont think favre is as irrelevant to the nfl as some writers want him to be....

[HarveyWallbangers]

They'll go back to 2005 to skew his winning percentage until he retires.

He could just have said:

In 2005, the Packers were devastated by injuries to their offense and had a porous defense, but Favre has guided the young, rebuilding Packers to a 10-8 mark in their last 18 games.

[mmmdk]

Through 2004, Favre won 65 percent of his starts.

Since 2005, he's won 39 percent.

god, i love when writers make up bullshit "stats" like this.

since 2005? can we remember to point out that in 2005 favre's team won 25% of their games but managed to raise that percentage to 50% the following year to arrive at that 39%? and where is the mention of favre's career winning percentage?

jeez, we all know favre is old. we just dont think favre is as irrelevant to the nfl as some writers want him to be....

...hate to break this one but those 39% are spot on.
2005: 4-12
2006: 8-8
2007: 1-0
Total: 13-20

That's a 39,4 winning % which approximately is 39%.

[packinpatland]

What was interesting, was who's photo was with the article??????
You guessed it...............Favre's.

This writer got his 15 seconds.

[VanPackFan]

If you've got a premise and the time to dig up stats, you can find numbers to support just about anything.

Obviously Farve's physical skills have waned somewhat. I'm sure he's lost a few miles off the fastball, which means he's no longer quite as capable of threading a pass into triple coverage. The throws he used to get away with he no longer does because he's no longer got the super-human arm. So yeah, Dr. Z is right. Farve is not what he used to be.

But gawdsakes the man is 37 and he's still capable of performing at a very high level.

Dr. Z (I hate typing that stupid name) certainly isn't taking into account outside factors. Farve NEVER had an elite cast surrounding him on offence. Ahman Green is arguably the best running back he's ever had, and Green ain't heading for the Hall. Edgar Bennett and Dorsey were the Super Bowl backs. With all due respect, they were the very definition of average.
As for wideouts, Sterling Sharpe was special, but he didn't hang around very long. Robert Brooks and Antonio Freeman had very short runs as top flight wideouts, and not concurrent. Bill Schroeder? Antonio Chatman? These are not names that made any fantasy football players salivate.

That Brett accomplished what he did with that cast is remarkable in itself. That his stats have slipped as an adequate supporting cast has slipped into the realm of mediocrity is not suprising at all.

Given two 1,000 yard calibre receivers, a 1,000 yard back and a good offensive line there's no question in my mind he could still be a top-10 NFL quarterback.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The article was written by some guy I haven't heard of, Reuben Frank. I couldn't find contact information on the site, so I wasted this rant:

Way to skew the stats to fit your point--as flawed was it was. I understand it's the herd mentality from the so-called national experts to pile on Favre. You also got your 15 minutes of fame--since nobody has heard of you. Nice job!

I'm sure the national writers will go back to 2005 to skew Favre's winning percentage until he retires, but here are the facts:

From 1992-2004, the Packers had the best record in the NFL and never had a losing season.

In 2005, they went 4-12. I wonder why? Could losing their top 3 RBs (Ahman Green, Najeh Davenport, and Tony Fisher) for a majority of the year be a factor? Could losing two of their top three WRs (Javon Walker and Robert Ferguson) for much of the year be a factor? (Hello, Antonio Chatman and Taco Wallace!) Could losing their top TE (Bubba Franks) for much of the year be a factor? Could starting Adrian Klemm and Will Whittcker at OG be a factor? Could having a porous defense and porous special teams be a factor? I guess not. It was all Favre. Sure, Favre played poorly that year. That can't be sugar-coated. Not surprisingly. He bounced back with a solid year last year. If not for the fact that the Packers max protected more than any team in the NFL (limiting Favre's options) and also led the league in drops by a wide margin, his stats would have been better.

You could have just as easily wrote:

In 2005, the Packers were devastated by injuries to their offense and had a porous defense, but Favre has guided the young, rebuilding Packers to a 10-8 mark in their last 18 games.

Here's a tip. National experts need to know about every team. Contact your scouts. Read the team reports on FOX Sports, USA Today, and the Sporting News. They have respected local writers that cover the teams and write their team reports. They are good. Use them. It might help to find some contacts for each team. Surprisingly, fans of teams often know more about teams than national writers. You'd be best served going to some forums, find out who the respected posters are, and use them as contacts to get the pulse of each team. That's what I'd do if I were in your position.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Even when Favre had a strong supporting cast, we lived and died with him. It's been a hell of a ride and it's not over yet, not by a long shot.

I think we're all secretly hoping Favre's star burns brightest just before it burns out. It'd be so sweet to see him lead this team to something huge in the post season.

[Cheesehead Craig]

This week there was an article written by an old writer who is well past his prime and has fully entered senility. He used to have some knowledge about football, but now he rambles on and clearly is more interested in making jokes to himself that only he gets the reference to, talking to his inflatable "wife" and drinking wine.

In the last decade, he is solely responsible for the declining sales of Sports Illustrated as they have become a 3rd rate magazine with the only brightspot being their annual mostly naked models issue.

Regardless of what he writes, he is innudated with letters and emails from football fans pointing out the many factual errors he prints and how far off his conclusions are about teams and players. He ignores these and writes them off as "wackos" as they don't agree with him.

When it's time to elect players for the HOF, he shakes his Magic 8 ball to see what he should do, rather than rationalize how that player was in their era.

That writer calls himself Dr. Z, even though he is not a doctor nor does he even have a PHD. It is truly sad when a man falls so far when he becomes the source of jokes and pity from his own peers.

[mmmdk]

Through 2004, Favre won 65 percent of his starts.

Since 2005, he's won 39 percent.

god, i love when writers make up bullshit "stats" like this.

since 2005? can we remember to point out that in 2005 favre's team won 25% of their games but managed to raise that percentage to 50% the following year to arrive at that 39%? and where is the mention of favre's career winning percentage?

jeez, we all know favre is old. we just dont think favre is as irrelevant to the nfl as some writers want him to be....

...hate to break this one but those 39% are spot on.
2005: 4-12
2006: 8-8
2007: 1-0
Total: 13-20

That's a 39,4 winning % which approximately is 39%.

By the way - this was not Favre bashing. It takes more than one guy to define a season record. Or a super bowl win (thank you Desmond Howard & Reggie White). It's more a reflection on the Shermy tenure and TT who followed. Favre is a legend, old yes, but pretty much still OK.

[Deputy Nutz]

What it is, is a journalist reading some headlines, watching the highlights on ESPN, and then looking at the box score. He didn't honestly sit down and watch the game because if he did, he would have seen Favre will this team to victory. He didn't play great, but he gutted out one of the toughest victories of his career.

[fan4life]

The article was written by some guy I haven't heard of, Reuben Frank. I couldn't find contact information on the site, so I wasted this rant:

Way to skew the stats to fit your point--as flawed was it was. I understand it's the herd mentality from the so-called national experts to pile on Favre. You also got your 15 minutes of fame--since nobody has heard of you. Nice job!

I'm sure the national writers will go back to 2005 to skew Favre's winning percentage until he retires, but here are the facts:

From 1992-2004, the Packers had the best record in the NFL and never had a losing season.

In 2005, they went 4-12. I wonder why? Could losing their top 3 RBs (Ahman Green, Najeh Davenport, and Tony Fisher) for a majority of the year be a factor? Could losing two of their top three WRs (Javon Walker and Robert Ferguson) for much of the year be a factor? (Hello, Antonio Chatman and Taco Wallace!) Could losing their top TE (Bubba Franks) for much of the year be a factor? Could starting Adrian Klemm and Will Whittcker at OG be a factor? Could having a porous defense and porous special teams be a factor? I guess not. It was all Favre. Sure, Favre played poorly that year. That can't be sugar-coated. Not surprisingly. He bounced back with a solid year last year. If not for the fact that the Packers max protected more than any team in the NFL (limiting Favre's options) and also led the league in drops by a wide margin, his stats would have been better.

You could have just as easily wrote:

In 2005, the Packers were devastated by injuries to their offense and had a porous defense, but Favre has guided the young, rebuilding Packers to a 10-8 mark in their last 18 games.

Here's a tip. National experts need to know about every team. Contact your scouts. Read the team reports on FOX Sports, USA Today, and the Sporting News. They have respected local writers that cover the teams and write their team reports. They are good. Use them. It might help to find some contacts for each team. Surprisingly, fans of teams often know more about teams than national writers. You'd be best served going to some forums, find out who the respected posters are, and use them as contacts to get the pulse of each team. That's what I'd do if I were in your position.

Here's a tip: If you can't find the writer's email, he's a freelancer. Send your rant to the editor. It will get read -- and, hopefully, the guy won't get any more assignments. The editor may even revisit the story later on.

[packinpatland]

The article was written by some guy I haven't heard of, Reuben Frank. I couldn't find contact information on the site, so I wasted this rant:

Way to skew the stats to fit your point--as flawed was it was. I understand it's the herd mentality from the so-called national experts to pile on Favre. You also got your 15 minutes of fame--since nobody has heard of you. Nice job!

I'm sure the national writers will go back to 2005 to skew Favre's winning percentage until he retires, but here are the facts:

From 1992-2004, the Packers had the best record in the NFL and never had a losing season.

In 2005, they went 4-12. I wonder why? Could losing their top 3 RBs (Ahman Green, Najeh Davenport, and Tony Fisher) for a majority of the year be a factor? Could losing two of their top three WRs (Javon Walker and Robert Ferguson) for much of the year be a factor? (Hello, Antonio Chatman and Taco Wallace!) Could losing their top TE (Bubba Franks) for much of the year be a factor? Could starting Adrian Klemm and Will Whittcker at OG be a factor? Could having a porous defense and porous special teams be a factor? I guess not. It was all Favre. Sure, Favre played poorly that year. That can't be sugar-coated. Not surprisingly. He bounced back with a solid year last year. If not for the fact that the Packers max protected more than any team in the NFL (limiting Favre's options) and also led the league in drops by a wide margin, his stats would have been better.

You could have just as easily wrote:

In 2005, the Packers were devastated by injuries to their offense and had a porous defense, but Favre has guided the young, rebuilding Packers to a 10-8 mark in their last 18 games.

Here's a tip. National experts need to know about every team. Contact your scouts. Read the team reports on FOX Sports, USA Today, and the Sporting News. They have respected local writers that cover the teams and write their team reports. They are good. Use them. It might help to find some contacts for each team. Surprisingly, fans of teams often know more about teams than national writers. You'd be best served going to some forums, find out who the respected posters are, and use them as contacts to get the pulse of each team. That's what I'd do if I were in your position.

Good rant........find some way to send it to Mr. Nobody.